About your Search

20121117
20121117
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
attack, but did his testimony get the obama administration in even more hot water? >> a short time ago, the former cia director left capitol hill after five hours of testimony, closed, classified testimony before the house & senate intelligence committees. >> general pet petraeus' briefing of comprehensive. it added to our ability to make judgments about what is clearly a failure of intelligence. >> the talking points were must have more specific about the al qaeda involvement, but the final ones indicate even though it was clearly evident to the cia that there was al qaeda involvement. >> talking points prepared for her. >> said it was al qaeda. >> sometime between september 14 and september 16, somebody took the al qaeda element out and put the video in. >> the question we have is who made the changes and why? we haven't been able to get that answer. >> petraeus is saying, i said it was terrorism from the get go. if you did, why did susan rice go out two days later and say it was the video. >> why we need a select committee on this. >> the general had to acknowledge and none of us li
this territory for weeks now that he thinks the obama administration is incompetent. we know his stand when it comes to libya. let the other committees do their work. i don't think a watergate-style hearing will necessarily advance -- >> greta: i disagree. there is too much duplication and we have people coming at six hearings. i would rather streamline it. susan, what do you think? >> when have you six different committees, they're often unable to share information. the spell gent committee can't talk about the classified hearings. so mccain's point, if we have one place where all of this information can be centralized, we can get to the bottom of this faster. this is four americans who were killed. this is not -- this is worse than watergate because people died -- the question that the republicans have, why -- why aren't democrats agreeing to a specially committee. >> i think no one says it's not serious. i think that is a distraction from the point. sometimes i think congress -- there is -- there is a regular order that sometimes in the mess that you are talking about has its own intelli
to get worse? >> tom, i think the obama administration has been rightfully supporting israel because israel has a right to defend itself, any country would. but i think the united states is going to want to work with egypt, with turkey and ka trkqa try to convince the leadership to stop this very provocative and hardy shelling of rocketing the cities. when hamas is targeting both tel aviv and israel, this is a new phase of war between a long-running war between them. israel is going to react to that. i think you'll see a very intense demonstration between them to cease and decysist. >> gaza is not a big area. at some point they have to run out of pockets to some degree, don't they? >> yeah, but that's a big risk. so the big driver of the israeli operation right now is the long-range rockets that were allegedly supplied by iran and which hamas has been using to target major urban centers in israel like tel aviv, like jerusalem. tel aviv has been the red line for israel, and as long as hamas has been in possession of these rockets and can maintain that threat against israeli population
that happens, most likely iranian supported elements started this. >> obama administration backs israel. is president obama standing with israel as in your judgment as he should? >> yes. so far he did. in the sense that he has no other option. no american president can come and say i'm with hamas against israel. he is with israel against hamas. at the same time this is the worst time for explosion to occur in the middle east. we know our situation in. we have an economic situation. ee needs unity in congress that is support of israel. we have the benghazi hearing. we may have to look at our national security doctrine. we have an arab spring that is being taken over by islamists. so putting that pressure that the u.s. can only do this and not more. >> gregg: hamas runs the authority in gaza. it's also a terrorist organization. it is recognized as a terrorist organization by the united states. hamas refuses to recognize israel, it's charter to this day vows the destruction of israel. does the international community including importantly the united nations need to stop supporting the hama
department first two years of the obama administration. but there's also a republican i'm going to mention here, richard haas. he's currently the president of the council on foreign relations, and he was a special assistant to president george h.w. bush, and during the administration of george w. bush, he served as the commissioner of policy and planning, same position as slaughter. he argues that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but it needs to become weaker. states should wont a weakened sovereignty, he says, ford to protect himselfs -- in order to protect themselves. i want to make one thing absolutely cheer clear. i'm not talking against international law in general or against international relations, and i draw a clear distinction between transnationalism and globalism and nationalism. there's nothing wrong with having international treaties. that means between nations. so the united states has a nato treaty. we get together with western europe, we're going to defend ourselfves, there's nothing wrong with that. same thing. i am criticizing in the book supernational,
be eager to help if the reelected obama administration wanted to take the lead and kickstart a process that deserves to be called a peace process. we certainly hope that would have been. with regard to the drug problem, i just want to add that of course everybody is now buying drones, even european armies are buying drones. but interestingly enough, as are injurious to countries in other parts of the world has declined because of the not so successful experience in over the last decade. i hope i'm correct i cannot recall a moment in recent history where in the absence of, you know, act of u.s. leadership or participation, the europeans are contemplating driving up plans right now for a military mission to molly. with the argument that what is going on in molly could he not necessarily, but could develop into something very similar to the kinds of phenomena that forced us into afghanistan a decade ago. so what i'm trying to say is the birth of the drug technology matters, i don't believe international development will allow us the luxury of keeping the boys home. there will be unfortuna
of president obama in the past. in your book you said the obama administration has sent contradictory messages and bringing into question the level of support for israel. many palestinian leaders believe they can get their state without offering any concession of their own. are you still, sir, as critical of the president saying hamas needs to stop the attacks? >> i said it very clearly in the past. president obama made very few mistakes coming to cairo in 2009. it doesn't work that way. we have to speak in a different language in the middle east. i know yesterday that prime minister netanyahu spoke with the president and we have the support of the u.s. behind us, but too early to call. we have to see if we will act and go into the ground operation and then we'll know if the u.s. for now we have the support and grateful for the support, the technical support and we also see the technology that we're using to bring down some of the missiles. >> danny dennen deputy speaker of the knesset. thank you very much, sir. >>> coming up next hour, i'll talk with a member of the palestinian legislative co
at the performance of susan rice, among others, and the obama administration, and so, harry reid sent a letter yesterday and told john mccain he is not going to get the special committee he wanted. but i think the administration simply is going to have to watch republicans spend their energy on this. david petraeus tried to make the argument, defending susan rice, that she was repeating talking points, that she'd been given for the reason that the administration did not want to alert terrorist groups that we knew that they were behind the attack. i'm not sure that that's going to quiet the criticism. we're just going to have to see how long it plays out. >> you saw the meeting yesterday with the president and congressional leaders on the fiscal cliff. how confident are you that a compromise will be reached in a timely fashion? >> pretty confident, actually, alex. you know, i thought the outcome of that meeting was about as positive as you could hope to see from a bipartisan meeting of congressional leaders with the president of the united states, all four leaders, pelosi, mcconnell, reid, boeh
when the obama administration what prompted the attack. a spontaneous recognition to an anti muslim video, or terrorists >> then the cia director pretorius 3 km in september. now, impressions of that meeting are mixed. >> so much of this confusion arises because of the difference between what is classified and what is not classified. he has told us that this was a terrorist attack or if there were a terrorist involved from the start. i told him my questions, had a very different recollection of that. >> congre congressman's askiking said petraeus testified he had no to wreck involvement in developing the top ones used by susan rice. in early days after the attack the u.n. ambassador to the united nations pointed to the film as a potential cause. >> the key is that there were unclassified talking points at a very early stage. >> jacqueline: reporters are sat lawmakers are saying that- for transgendered was asking little about his affair with biographer paula broadwell anything that occurred with respect to disperse the situation has nothing to do with the way he handled benghazi at a
to the united nations susan rice did not call the attack a terror strike. but republicans contend the obama administration wanted to down play terrorism from the start. >> the issue is from what was released from c.i.a. headquarters on friday afternoon in an unclassified talking point memo to the point it was changed to the sunday morning talk shows, there is a gap of about 48 hours that we need to account for and understand why it was changed. >> all the intelligence community have told us that initially they recognized there were extremists and terrorists involved, but they thought it came from a protest, that it took them time to sort that out, that there was no political spin in this. >> after the talking points memo left the c.i.a., then went to other intelligence agencies and the white house and the state department and the justice department and then to lawmakers. somewhere in there, the language was changed. rick? >> rick: molly henneberg live in washington. thank you. >> arthel: the white house now reporting that president obama will meet with congressional leaders the week after t
moment. i think the message you hear from the obama administration is that moment is not coming back again. you have to pick your fights and pick them according to national interests. i think what will be fascinating in the mideast, as you saw in libya, where we got into a discussion, a debate between the republican defense secretary, robert gates, who said there is no national interest here and people like secretary clinton, susan rice and others who said we have a responsibility to protect and not was the argument for going in and -- that was the argument for going in. that argument remains unsettled today, and that is the doubt i think you were picking up on in your question. >> i will make several comments. in europe, a look at it this way. first, when you look at, globally, countries, the united states has had the capability, and even in this period of time, but secondly, it is the united states that has taken the responsibility and stepped forward. i cannot point to another country that has been willing to take that responsibility. having said that, david refers to how we
mccain that they are not going to cooperate with the second administration of barack obama, that they are going to stall out all of his nominations. this is their warning shot that they are going to filibuster her appointment and perhaps anybody else's. i think that's what it is. and here is the intelligence committee member. >> again, i'm really confused. the only point in contention really is whether or not this attack emerged from a protest and as soon as the information became clearer and it did take some time for that to happen, then that was perfectly clarified. there is absolutely -- it's inconceivable to me for anybody to speculate there would be a deliberate misleading of the american people. why would there be? it's perfectly inconsequential al. there was a spontaneous demonstration and the terrorist groups organized to take opportunistic advantage of it or not. in any case, there is no advantage to mislead the american people in that regard. i mean you have to have motivation behind it and there is none. and as soon as the intelligence became clearer and as a mem
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)